It's really good, and I'm quite sure it was a ton of work, so give 'em some love.

Edit Copy's main point as I read it, is that because the troops are being pulled out of the dire situation in Anbar to Baghdad, the situation must be perceived by the military as substantially dire there as well.

I would fully agree, but I would extend to say that Baghdad represents a strategic priority, because if Baghdad falls, there will be no more Iraqi government forces for Anbar or anywhere else in the longer term.

If the US loses Baghdad, the Iraqi government will extend its reach only to the green zone, any hope of turning anything over to the Iraqi government is gone and we're looking at warlord ridden Mogadishu circa 1993 with better troops, organization, and weapons.

Paraphrase: "We're not undermanned in Anbar because our goal is not to defeat the insurgency there."

"We have not abandoned Anbar, we're just lowering it in priority."

Also, making connections, I would argue that the US "suppression" efforts in Anbar is one of the main reasons for the violence in the south. The US is tying up a lot of Sunni fighters leaving the Shia to fight amongst themselves.

About This Blog

This is not the America I was brought up to believe in.
This blog seeks to highlight abuse of power, deception, corruption, and just plain bad ideas in government and corporations.
Updated several times a day.